Talk:Domestication/Archive 1

Archive 1

False Dichotomy

Re: "Some researchers give credit to natural selection, where mutations outside of human control make some members of a species more compatible to human cultivation or companionship. Others have shown that carefully controlled selective breeding is responsible for many of the collective changes associated with domestication." Mutations are not natural selection, they are the source if variation which makes selection (natural or otherwise) possible. A mutation/variation that makes an animal more compatible to human cultivation is still, implicitly, selected by humans even if not as part of an organized breeding scheme. The real distinction here is between conscious selective breeding by humans in the form of animal husbandry and unconscious selective breeding by humans in the form of favoritism toward animals that are more compatible. In any case, "some researchers" and "others" need to be clarified with specific citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.37.6 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Having just found the model up on here I pasted it on this page. I am one of the autors of fr:Domestication, that we turned into a featured article (I wrote feathered first, no, that's only for hens if I remember well). I took some pieces on this article on the beginning (still the part on plants (= espèces végétales) it a closed translation from the english article). If some of you are willing so, I would be glad to be help or to help in translating the article in french and, why not, get the star on the top right for it. It wouldn't mean to delete all the existing article of course, since it's allready quite developped. Any volonteers ? Salut ! Astirmays 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dog domestication

Most of the article says that dogs were domesticated around 15,000 BCE, but under the history chart, it says

"Obviously, these are not dates that are set in stone. In fact, these dates are possibly far from being accurate due to scanty evidence. The earliest estimates, however, are that animals started to be domesticated approximately 10,000 years ago (8000 BCE)."

Is this a mistake?

It isn't. It seems that dog were domesticated several milenium before this other species. There is clues that shows that it was even much earlier than 15,000 BC that the relationship between dog and man started. (since mitrochondrial DNA indicate that dog and wolf would have separate about 150 000 year ago). See Origin of the domestic dog. Or fr:domestication and other ones. Astirmays 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Raptors have been both caught in the wild and raised from birth to hunt with and for humans; dogs are also used to flush game for the birds. This goes back thousands of years.

Dogs Domesticated in Middle East?

While Middle East is technically Asia, I don't believe that's what researchers referred in a recent study that found Asian dogs such as Chow Chow to be closest genetically to ancient wolves.

http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0520DOGSLIFE-ON.html

Shouldn't it be Asia, not Middle East? While the Middle East is when the first civilizations started, the domestication of dogs happened long before that.

On proposed merger with domesticated animal

Domestication is a distinct subject. This article contains lots that might belong (also?) at domesticated animal, but the examples serve to illuminate the question of demestication, so at least some of this should stay here.

I'm opposed to the proposed merger on these grounds. Admustments are probably indicated, however.

Here is my take. There is a separate List of domesticated animals that I plan to merged Domesticated animals with in accordance with the wikipedia naming conventions for lists. The List of domesticated plants and List of domesticated animals are useful and should be maintained separately from this article on domestication, although they should all contain links to each other.--Jjhake 21:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

six critera. but maybe 7?

The six criteria appear to be seven in number. I don't have a copy of the book, could someone who does fix either the number or the list? Bryan

I fixed the list. The "moderate size" seems to have been added afterwards, and does not match elephants. --FvdP

Cats? Domesticated?

The degree of domestication of the cat is "questionable, because it does not really recognise a human as its chief"? This is in contrast, say, to the rabbit and the guinea pig??? -- Someone else 20:37 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I guess the main reason is that the cat comes from Africa ;-) --FvdP 20:46 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Must be. Actually, I think those who claim the cat is not domestic might be overimpressed by the fact that the cat can survive on its own quite nicely, feeling that domestic animals somehow ought to be obligately dependent on humans. But now I've been forced to do it: haul out Guns, Germs, and Steel: cats are indexed on pages 158, 173, 207, and 389. on p. 158: "...cats were domesticated in North Africa and Southwest Asia to hunt rodent pests." (The page has lots of small animals designated as domesticated (honeybee, silkworm moth, chinchilla), but Jared says the big animals were more important (not more domesticated). p. 173: "Cats and ferrets are the sole territorial mammal species that were domesticated, because our motive for doing so was not to herd them in large groups riased for food but to keep them as solitary hunters or pets." p. 207 relates to diseases that can be spread by "our pets and domestic animals". p. 389: "Wild ancestors of...house cats were native to North Africa but also to Southwest Asia, so we can't yet be certain where they were first domesticated, although the earliest dates currently known for...house cats favor Egypt." So nowhere does Diamond question the domesticity of the cat. Nor do I think there is any question that the species has been altered by its contact with man, so the offending phrase will now magically disappear (until the next person with an opinion stops by G). -- Someone else 21:05 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

There were other animals introduced at the same time like the cat, eg. fox and fallow deer, so I would be extremely doubtful on claims on domestication --Yak 16:46, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Pedigree of Diamond's Criteria?

Hmm. Weird indeed. The criteria listed are only "According to evolutionary anthropologist Jared Diamond...", (ie, they are not universal), yet the rest of the article judges everything by this guy's criteria. not good -- Tarquin 20:40 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

You are right that chunks of the article are extracted from Diamond's book. However that is because his arguments are pretty convincing and apparently well researched. His book is well worth reading in full. It gives a large number of references to his source material, and as far as I can establish his conclusions are largely his original work. [He got the Rhone-Poulenc Science Book Prize, for whatever that's worth]. Anyone know of anyone else who has published anything else substantial in this area? Gliderman (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

outsider taxa

On Talk:Domesticated outsider taxa i pose a queston abt my nonce term "outsider taxa", which also relates to Domestication. --Jerzy 09:33, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

potted plants -- domesticated?

Does anybody know what is the difference between domesticated plants mentioned here and all the nice pottery plants which are for sale and based on wild ancestors? This question arose at Dutch Wikipedia. Thanks Ellywa 11:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bees and rats

Should the honey bee and the silkworm be mentioned?

Is there a term for parahuman animals (pests) like rats, city pigeons and gulls. They are not tamed but depend (at least many of them) on humans.

-- Error 00:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ww 16:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I oppose, too; I would think that this article would deal with the process of and issues about domestication, whereas Domestic animal would identify those already domesticated and their role in various societies or cultures. Elf | Talk 03:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would call these "parahuman animals" commensalist (a user of french wikipedia : Astirmays)

Domestication by Animals

Why are the "ant-cow" aphids raised by leaf-cutter ants not a case of domestication? There are behaviors in the ants whose sole function is meeting the needs of the aphids, and why should hard-wired genetic behavior be treated so differently from conscious intention? In fact, if that were the criterion, there is a theory that says since wolves are so unamenable to domestication, the truth must be that a human-tolerant mutation must have been selected for due to the ability of wolves expressing it to scavenge from garbage heaps that humans created with no intention of domesticating anything; that would mean the domestication process went a long ways inintentionally, but IMO no one would conclude from that that dogs aren't really domesticated. --Jerzy(t) 23:58, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Dogs: 10000 BCE or 11000 BCE

The article says two diferent things about the beginning of dog's domestication. In one place it says they were domesticated 10000 BCE, in another place - 11000 BCE. 212.235.99.134 04:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adjusted table to match info we've got in the dog article. The next place in the article mentions both ends of the range. Elf | Talk 00:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

recent editions to table

Sorry not to have included a summary with previous edits. I am new at this. All my changes were on the table of approximate dates. I added Honeybee and Silkworm, expanded the date for Cats, and adjusted the spacing of cells. I hope I have not caused any trouble. Feel free to remove Honeybee or Silkworm if not appropriate.

Jjhake 22:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A separate master list of all organisms being bred under human control

I am wondering if the section called “Categories of domesticated organisms” should be moved into a separate master list that would be merged with the “List of domesticated animals,” the “List of domesticated plants” and the list of “Domesticated outsider taxa.” There are so many organisms with complete lifecycles under the care and direction of humans that the list in this article is starting to look like a full taxonomical chart of all living things. It is an interesting and valuable list, but I think that it should all be consolidated into one list that is organized into the three main categories of animals, plants, and outsider taxa. I also think that there should be some standardized way of specifying the degree of domestication for a species or a simple explanation of why it should be included on the list. The article on domestication should contain a clear link to this master list, but I think that the article and the master list should be separate projects. What do others think? --[[User:Jjhake|Jjhake (talk)]] 21:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need to replicate the list of living things--it is startling to click "mammals" in this article and, instead of getting a list of domesticated mammals, getting the full article on all mammals, etc. I agree that we need a better definition of what we want to list as domesticated--presumably any plant that has been brought in from the wild and hybridized a couple of times is "domesticated", which leaves us with billion and billions of plants that could be listed. And I think there's already a reasonably good list of reasonably thoroughly domesticated animals in the article. So I'm thinking get rid of this bit entirely. Elf | Talk 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, seeing no further comments, I will go ahead and plan to relocate this section (Categories of domesticated organisms). I will merge it with the lists. I think a list of domesticated organisms and their categories might still be of interest, but it should in be consolidated as a separate list. Any further thoughts?

Here is one possible system for a way of organizing the list of domesticated organisms:

• Domesticated animals
  • For food
    • Livestock
      • Cattle
      • Goat
      • Pig
    • Fowl
      • Chicken
      • Turkey
      • Mallard
    • Other animals
      • Guinea pig
      • Dog
  • For labor
    • Oxen
    • Water buffalo
  • For a commodity (wool, leather, etc.)
    • Cattle
    • Sheep
    • Silk worm
  • For science or research
    • Laboratory mice
  • For pets
    • Dog
    • Cat

A similar system could to be used for plants and the other kingdoms.

For large animals this works. For small animals (rodents etc), it's going to be very hard (who knows how many have been kept as pets sometime, somewhere!). For plants it would seem a virtually impossible task, so many species have been bred by humans for drugs, ornament, etc, and so many hybrides created (in passing where do these fit in, hybrid species created by man, sometimes by genetic engineering as well as 'voluntary' and 'forced/un-natural' breeding). Gliderman (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cows in the Sahara

Recently, this link was added to the article along with the statement that cows were first domesticated around 6000 BCE in Northern-Africa. While I don't know much about domestication, I'm sure that the link does not warrant this statement: it does not even contain the word 'cow' or 'ox'; it only speaks of 'cattle', which in African contexts easily could apply to goats or other non-cow kinds of cattle. As the link does not warrant the conclusion that it speaks about cows and cows only, it should not make the article say so. That is why I have removed it the first time and why I have moved it to Talk now. — mark ✎ 18:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't claim to know naything about African pastoralism, and was unaware that in this context "cow" and "cattle" aren't necessarily the same thing. I decided based on my understanding of "cattle", and that the link looks credible - hosted in a university professor's web space, apparently a supplement to a textbook - that the link could stay. But I'm happy to leave it out. Thanks, mark, for your detailed explanation. CDC (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

CHART: CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT WEST AFRICA, p. 43

By 6,000 BCE Evidence of domesticated 'humpless' cattle in the Saharan region. Also seed-cropping (or harvesting) of grains. [posted by Roylee]

Still no cows. You know, there might have been, but I would just like to see a more solid and unambiguous source. — mark ✎ 20:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Honey bees domesticated?

Now I only dabble in beekeeping... but I was under the impression that honey bees were never truely domesticated. That's what beekeepers have told me. you can go "capture" a wild swarm, and "domesticated" bees can swarm and create colonies in the wild. Some queens have been bred for specific traits, but they can live completely independant of humans, unlike cows and other animals. I think they're more coaxed into living in convenient boxes for us than they are domesticated.

Infobox

What do US domestic animals number have to do with domestication in general?--nixie 08:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong

"While the process continues with plants (berryfruits, for example), it appears to have ceased with animals." This is a wrong assertion especially if you consider aquaculture. Ericd 21:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

And let's see, reindeer, muskoxen, mule deer.... I'm changing this statement. Deirdre 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Process of domestication: Mutation vs Natural Selection

I am confused by this paragraph that seems to pit mutation and natural selection as alternate theories of domestication. This seems like a misunderstanding of how natural selection uses mutation. Random mutations cause new genes to appear, and natural selection causes the "better" genes to become widespread. I would guess that there are only two competing theories: natural selection and selective breeding.Happyharris 18:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I made an effort to correct this confusion. --Jjhake 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychoactive plants

I removed this text:

Reflecting human cultural proclivity to alter consciousness, plants with psychoactive properties were also domesticated early, such as the opium poppy, the cannabis plant and grapes for fermenting into wine.

It's inaccurate. Opium poppy is fairly early, Neolithic Italy, about 4000 years after wheat and barley domestication, anyhow, probably first domesticated for its oil. Date of hemp is uncertain, but again probably domesticated for oil; grapes are probably c. 5000 years ago, so 5000 years after wheat and barley. I think the writer of the original words is straying from a NPOV in trying to find evidence for early psychoactive use of plants. Mark Nesbitt 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

International Wiki

Hi all, Come and see the french page about domestication, that I developped partly from this one, then searching for more informations elswhere, and from what I could know. I hope you can understand or guess something, you can either use the google translator... Astirmays

Guinea pigs: domestication in AD 900 or 2000 BC?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig, which reports domestication at 2000 BC and not AD 900 as this article states.

What is Ukraine at 2000BC?

I see, that horse was domesticated in Ukraine 4000 years ago. But this is fake. There is no evidence that either Ukraine or Kievian Rus' existed at that time. (excuse my English) Dims 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The country name is being used as a geographical description, not a political one.Mark Nesbitt 12:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How did someone know, that domestication of horse occured on territory of Ukraine, while he don't know what historical country at this territory existed?! It is impossible! Dims 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Look! Every other domestication associated with large regions! And only horse associated with some sharpened country! It seems to me, that some ukrainian nationalist put this statement here. It should be replaced with "europe", or, if you wish, "eastern europe"! Dims 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reading a little too far into this. Ukraine is just a more precise geographical description. -- bcasterline • talk 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's forget about my reasoning. Simple. Do you have some references, confirming, that domestication of horse occured on territory of Ukraine? Dims 10:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the location most references give. See, for example, this page. -- bcasterline • talk 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It seems to me, that this is not the location of domestication, this is location of most early dated finding. We can take every finding about domestication of every animal, for example, a dog. Look! It written there "multiple places". Let's take all these places, sort them by date, select first and -- voila -- we have extremely precise point of domestication of a dog! Nonsense? Nonsense! We should not only sort places by date, we should also prove, that this point caused all other points. Ok. My final suggestion is: let us make two colums for location. In first column we will say where domestication occured by overall study, and in second -- where most early finding located. So, we'll have approximate areas in first column, and precise points in second. There we can put even village Dereivka, where most old teeth found. Because otherwise table looks strange: large regions and Ukraine among them. What about Ukrainian globe? :) Dims 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh so terrestrial...

Fish are also animals...I do not see them listed here anywhere. Carp are one of the earliest domesticates of any animal and they should be considered here. Most people do not realize this, but particularly because of the home aquarium hobby and the importance of aquaculture, there are far more species of domesticated fish than terrestrial animals.

Also, rather than use Jared Diamond's (a nice popular writer on evolution, but not exactly an authority) hierarchy...you should use Juliet Clutton-Brock's. See her: Natural History of Domesticated Mammals for a start.

Hi there, please sign your posts. I fixed some 'ukn' -> 'unk' but I must admit fish as domesticated seems somewhat odd given their lack of interaction with humans. Diamond I wouldn't consider authoritative, I'll try to look into the second source, thanks. MKV 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the definition of domestication you have in mind. Goldfish, carps and even new species such as Rainbow trout have gone differents in their shape from their wild ancestor. They are propably more adapted to farming than their wild ancestor were.

By the way, I am the main autor of the french article (featured article). Do you want to turn this one to featured article as well ? I would be glad to help, since if we work well, it would be better than the french one, (and permit to improve it again !) Astirmays 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dolphins

Since when has there been an effort to domesticate dolphins? Training wild animals, particularly ones as intelligent as Ceteceans or the great apes, or keeping wild animals captive, is not at all the same thing as domesticating them. This table needs some sources. Deirdre 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reptiles?

I don't see any reptiles on the list. I mean, Ball Pythons are pets, as well as iguanas and other reptiles I can't think of right now. Don't they need a place too?

Oh yeah, and this:

"In Central Asia, Golden Eagles sometimes are trained for falconry: in Kazakhstan there are still hunters using these eagles in order to catch deer and antelopes; in Kyrgyzstan hunters will use them to hunt foxes [1]; and in Mongolia they are traditionally trained to hunt wolves. Some of the animals that Golden Eagles have been trained to kill can weigh 45 kg (100 lb)"

So wouldn't golden eagles be somewhat domesticated?

Confusion about bees

The article seems to be confused about bees, in that it says both "There is early evidence of beekeeping, in the form of rock paintings, dating to 13,000 BC." and (in the table) that bees were domesticated about 4,000 BC. So which is right? (if either; I see somebody earlier queried whether bees counted as domesticated at all). pm215 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigs domestication, Eastern Turkey and China

Nowhere in the reference, quoted by the article, does it say explicitly or otherwise that Pigs were first domesticated in China! The reference merely proves a divergence in genes between wild Chinese pigs and Europe pigs around 500,000 years before the present and another divergence in genes of the domestic pig around 2000 years ago. The reference is challenging the idea, that pigs were simply spread from their supposed original domestication area, in eastern Turkey and China (not just China, no one has ever thought that!), to the rest of the world. The reference quoted shows, there is some genetic connection between European wild boar and the European domesticated pig. It is therefore saying, there was a independent domestication of the pig in Europe or perhaps there was a mixing of the native European wild species being domesticated with introduced domesticated pigs from the near East, happening later than the earlier domestications that occurred in the near east, Turkey/Israel and the far East, China. (Eastern Turkey and Israel, the fertile crescent, are in the near east, "Asia")

The reference used in the article - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/4/1785

I have changed the Article to include, the Near East and not just China as the places that started pig domestication.

Sheep

The source reference quoted by the article is not disputing the domestication of sheep initially occurred in the central part of the fertile crescent it is merely showing that the sheep was cross bread with local wild varieties, across Europe and Asia. So, I will erase Asia from the article, which is very vague anyway and does not include Europe, as the site of the domestication of the sheep.

Levels of Domestication

In the section on levels of deomestication, how about adding a further category for species that are now dependant on human intervention for their reproduction? Many plant (especially fruits like bananas and grapes) are now wholly bound to human control over their breeding and can no longer reproduce on their own.

duplicate reindeer listing

'reindeer' appears twice in the list of 'Approximate dates and locations of first domestication'; while in a different region, it seems silly to mention the same animal twice? - Weerlicht 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "second circle" mean?

I noticed in Domestication#Approximate_dates_and_locations_of_original_domestication, there is a second table labeled "second circle." How does this "circle" differ from the first table? --92.104.254.8 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also terribly confused about this. Obviously, I can speculate, but I don't think we're alone in being confused. The term shouldn't be used unless its explained. 131.107.0.72 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

and Reindeer

and other Reptil, even Ape ,monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.215.231 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of domestication

-The definition stated of domestication in this article, I feel is inaccurate. It is limited to plants and animals as the controlled factors and humans as the controlling factors, whereas in truth, abstract, animate and inanimate objects, including many forms of life, processes can come to be considered domesticated and many species can be considered the domesticators, in my opinion. Take, for example, the process of forming diamonds or the idea of flight; they can be considered recently domesticated. For a more relevant example, take certain members of the ant species, who are known to frequently domesticate other insects and herd them for their ability to generate sugar-rich substances, able to sustain an entire colony. Because domestication is in deed slavery, take for a most extreme example, the domesticating of one human by another. The definition of domestication, therefore, should be reconsidered, and, in my opinion, stretched to include the endless possibilities and already current happenings that many of us humans deem inappropriate and preposterous based on the simple fact that we never witnessed it. The working of my opinion on this page may be wholly irrelevant, but it is your honorable duty as editors of an encyclopedia to acknowledge the possible truth, whether it be welcomed or not, and by doing so consider the words previously stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.189.211 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been too many days. I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.191.21 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.[1] Your definition do not correspond to the normal understanding and usage of the term (which overwhelmingly implies human agency), and it is not reflected in the rest of the article. No one usually talks about "domestication" of diamonds, for instance, or also plants "domesticating" other plants or animals. To consider a "possible truth" without substantial backing is called "original research" in Wikipedia. Becauuse of the lack of support of secondary sources, I am reverting to the original definition. --75.37.19.116 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

conservation status?

why is there a conservation status chart attached to this article? 207.237.198.152 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been 10 days, I will remove it.207.237.198.152 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Former Instances

I believe this section should be removed from the page. There is no evidence that African or Asian elephants were ever domesticated. History shows that they were tamed wild animals. A domesticated animal must be born and reared in captivity.Jgayoso-GMU (talk)

Tasty Elephants?

Someone should check that sentence. I'd change it but I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.70.179 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No History

This article currently deals with the processes of domestication while never talking specifically about the history of domestication (aside from the limited "background" section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.223.94 (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is a huge mistake

As an other contributor said it above, this page is a great error. And the French page too (the Article de qualité of this page is not in favour of the reputation of Wikipedia). In this case Wikipedia is not very serious. It is impossible to speak about domestication without speaking about religion, sacrifice and so on. According great anthropologists (see below), there is a close relationship between sacrifice, religion and the origin of society and language. Theses matters are not well-known but it is necessary to give a large place to these anthropological theories. Some people see a link between domestication and slavery. It is also an interesting view. It is a pity that this page is only written on a positivist point of view. I give sommepossiblesources (even in the en-Wp):

Dogs in ancient China Arthur Maurice Hocart René Girard Henri Hubert Marcel Mauss fr.Luc de Heusch

Girard, René. (1977) Violence et le Sacré (eng. Violence and the Sacred). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[2] Jeffrey Carter [3] search : domestication + Sacrifice

[4] search : Girard and animals William Robertson Smith

[5]

[6] search: domestication + Sacrifice

[7]

[8] Jonathan Z. Smith read the p. 151: "A theory of sacrifice must begin with the domesticated animal and with the sociocultural process of domestication"

Because of my bad English I don't think it is possible for me to first change the page. But we must improve a page written less or more on the model of a French page which is a bad page. José Fontaine (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

horse domesticated earlier

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7926235.stm

Utility of domesticating dogs

Jerry Pournelle has stated on his blog that the domestication of dogs was symbiotic in that the villages of the cavemen who domesticated dogs survived longer than villages without dogs. Would be great material for the article if anyone knows of a more reliable source. Tempshill (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Domestication and taming

Are these two words complete synonyms? --Zara-arush (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Substandard?

This article in general feels remarkably different to the majority of wikipedia articles... It seems to be substandard with some contradictory statements, very loose grammar, and very loose facts (a tiglon is domesticated? really?)... The article reads like a collection of high school reports mishmashed together with several different 'voices' to be heard, and the habit of occasionally rambling. However, I am no wiki expert. That said, I think I'd recommend this page for a rewrite... but have no idea how one would go about suggesting such a thing, or if my suggestion is valid. ColbyWolf (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

confused method of change?

In the backgrd section, the role of mutation in natural vs artificial selection seems confused. Reference is made to debate about mutation vs artiticial selection (by humans). However... as I understand it, mutation is key to both. Here is my understanding of the mechanism of evolution:

• mutations occur naturally and randomly, normally very small incremental change -- simply the normal variability seen between different individuals of any species.
• some selection mechanism then chooses which of those individuals produce offspring, thus passing on their genetic characteristics
• overtime, those selected characteristics come to dominate the norm in the species -- that is evolution
• as to the selection mechanism it can be either:

(1) natural -- this is natural selection, the natural competion for survival, in which the best adapted do best and produce the most offspring; or (2) artificial -- as when humans pick characteristics they want and breed for it. Note that while the one is natural and the other artificial, both are based upon mutation to produce the actual (random) changes. Have I got this right? Any actual evolutionary biologists out there who can comment. Wolseleydog (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.22.7 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

domestication != taming ?

The first line equates domestication and taming, the next line distinguishes domestication as a heritable trait versus taming as an individual trait (as the rest of the article).

As an evolutionary biologist this coincides with my preferences/prejudices, but I know that the domestication concept is very much used as a cultural and non- or less-biological concept in STS research (a viewpoint totally lacking from the article). So I don't dare to alter the article as I'm not enough of an expert to choose one way or the other; I'm just pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.197 (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah I am pretty sure that is right. taming is where you catch an animal from the wild, and train it. there should be a separate article on taming. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the heading "Degrees", in the paragraph discussing "Raised in Captivity/Captured from Wild", there is a statement which says "and animals such as Asian black bears (farmed "cruelly" for their bile)".

While I agree that bear bile farming is horrifically cruel, it gives the article a moral judgement tone that does not fit with an encyclopedia.

I suggest the parenthesis and the word "cruelly" be removed, and the sentence read "and animals such as Asian black bears which are farmed for their bile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip72 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am new to editing wikipedia, so I don't know if it is PC to post a link to a kid's film I made a film about animal domestication. My film is called "Why don't we ride zebras?" It is on youtube and on a science/natural history web channel called TERRA. http://www.lifeonterra.com/episode.php?id=191 13smithwalker (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kid's film? No problem for it being a kid's film. It could be useful in explaining why zebras are not domesticated. The great animal trainer Gunther Gebel Williams once said that he could not even approach taming a zebra even if it might be an attractive animal to train. (He also mentioned the domestic cat, an animal unsuited to the circus because it is difficult to keep in an enclosure through which it can be seen and because it can easily escape any enclosure; contrast dogs and big cats which have similar abilities if not the same perception of danger). The book did not express a reason. Could it be that zebras see humans only as predators because human behavior is so characteristic of a predator? Horses, in contrast, have found us useful and comparatively trustworthy.

Video as evidence can be troublesome, though. Is the film representative? Is it made by trustworthy people? Is it free from sensationalism and staging? Are people making the film authorities in their field? A transcript would be better as documentation because it would be easier to cite.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Domestication in other animals?

Came to this article wondering if there were any examples of domestication in nature. The initial description in the article suggests that domestication purely exists between humans and "Other species". Does anyone know if there are examples in nature or is this a pureley human trait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.213.28 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Domestication is a form of Mutualism. For example, the process by which ants will "farm" aphids is considered mutualistic, not domestication, because domestication is by definition a human activity. While you might be able to make an argument for whether or not they are "the same thing", that would be OR and certainly outside the scope of the article. AdamBellaire (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe ants are the only animals to have domesticated another species. in this case a fungus. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the ambrosia beetle also cultivates a fungus which they "farm" inside galleries excavated in the xylem of trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.214.231 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, there is a species of ant that farms and herds mealy bugs. LorenzoB (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Second circle?

What means second circle in the context of the domestication of animals? — Daniel FR (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. There appears to be no sourcing to this as well. Whoever added appears to think that owning a specimen of a particular species is the same thing as having tamed it, and also that taming is the same thing as domestication. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. GoEThe (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

cats

the article states that only 12 species have been "domesticated". I miss cats in the list (imnsho, cats aren't "domestic" anyway; but that's the point of the debate). perhaps the criteria to define "domestication" is too restrictive, or cat lovers perhaps are too lax. Comments? Lwyx (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, pets are a significant component of domestication, not just cats though81.152.200.124 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Domestic cats are as bloodthirsty predators as any wild cats. Except for their small size (contrast dogs which range in size up to that of lionesses and are similarly powerful, strong, agile, cunning, and voracious) they would be man-eaters. The largest breeds of domestic dog rival all of the Big Cats in size except tigers and male lions, but dogs are roughly equals to humans in the food chain. Dogs and humans are generally not on the meal list of each other, and they find each other useful.

Cats get away with more wild behaviors and are less adapted from wildness than any other domesticated animal, and even revert to wildness more easily than any other animal considered domesticated. They are extremely difficult to control, but mistakes in handling the domestic cat don't have the severe consequences that mishandling a dog might imply. But if they have changed less from a wild animal than some animals have -- then maybe a domestic cat is closer to perfection as a household pet than anything else. A cat can be a marvelous companion, rivaling the dog as such. It might be a wild animal for all practical purposes once it leaves a household enclosure, but if it returns to the family it is not a wild animal.

If it lives consistently in a human enclosure -- in that respect it is more domesticated than a horse or any livestock. It is clearly not a dangerous animal, which rules out just about every other species of cat. It is not vermin. The animal most similar to its role (unless one is to introduce foxes or ferrets as domesticated animals) is the dog. So what is it other than a domestic creature?

With dogs and cats, domestication is not complete control by humans. Cats and dogs have shown themselves capable of manipulating human behavior to their advantage. The domestication of dogs and cats is not all one way.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

guns germs and steel guns germs and steel guns germs and steel ad nauseum

That's the impression I get from this article.

I have no problem with citing Jared Diamond as a source and putting "guns germs and steel" at the bottom with the other sources but constant off topic quibbling is an irritating distraction, something that should be minimized in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.124 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

edit: taming is not synonymous with domestication

Changed the introduction where it said "domestication or 'taming' is.... As an animal or plant is only classified as domesticated if human intervention has resulted in genetic change in the species. (dogs from wolves, modern corn from the old barely edible stuff)

Wording might be awkward, and i probably made typos, so someone might want to clean it up.

For a citation see any basic anthropology text. I just came here to check a date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.165.14 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Taming needs its own article

Why does "taming" redirect to "domestication"? Not only taming needs a separate article and has none, but this redirection prevents making one. denis "spir" (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Domesticated lions?

I read in a newspaper yesterday (The Independent, 12 October 2012, page 9) that a pride of captive lions from the managerie of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia is now genetically distinct from other African lions. They have been bred for darker manes and to be smaller and squatter. These changes are presumably "...in order to accentuate traits that benefit humans" (aesthetics). So, these are presumably 'Domesticated lions'! Should these be included in this article? __DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is dependency "usual" or "common" or "occaisional"

An editor recently changed in the opening para. the word "common" to usual when relating to a dependency on humans and ability to live in the wild. The editor was correct to make the change because the citation refers to the following definition "to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild." But is this a case where the definition is incorrect. Most of the domesticated species I can think of have feral populations somewhere, so they are not dependent.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace content of domestication syndrome with a better reference

I removed the content below which was previously written under sub-heading "Plants", section "Background", as it's adapted from a lecture note: Domesticated plant species often differ from their wild relatives in predictable ways. These differences are called the domestication syndrome, and include:

• Higher germination ratesMore predictable & synchronous germination
• Increased size of reproductive organs
• A tendency for ripe seeds to stay on the plant, rather than breaking off and falling to the ground
• Reduced physical and chemical defences
• Change in biomass allocation (more in fruits, roots, or stems, depending on human needs).

I replaced with a list of characteristic of domesticated plants taken from a more prominent publication on plant domestication and cultivation (Zeven, A. C., & de Wit, J. M. (1982). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity, Excluding Most Ornamentals, Forest Trees and Lower Plants). MKwek (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Ox to Cattle?

I would like to propose a change to change Ox to Cattle. Cattle is the general term which describes both cows and bulls. Ox is specifically the male who is castrated and used as a draft or load animal. So it would be proper to talk of domestication of cattle or cow than Ox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific definitions for domesticity and tame

What is the conclusive general statement for domestication? I believe this include domestication by human beings as the essence for its scientific definition. How about taming? Tame? Tame in the dictionary means - to domesticate an animal but tame may have 2 persona in science- tame but without human intervention such as island animals and tame those with human intervention. The same thing with wild- wild which are really wild and wild which shows patterns of "domesticity" or "tameness" as in island animals. In Savillo's proposed domesticity scale for wild birds he stated- Domesticity is not slavery or indoctrination of wild birds- this is the observable natural behavior of "wild" birds to humans in the surroundings per se (how "homely" to humans) which include tame birds (without human intervention/domestication) such as island birds- Galapagos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.9.25 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Neoteny

This article sorely needs some discussion of physiological and psychological neoteny, or pedomorphosis, defined as the retention, by adults, of traits previously seen only in the young, which is commonly encountered among domesticated animals, and is well documented in the human species, at least physiologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE82:3D49:5918:303F:AC1:C5F0 (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern instances Is this Reliable?

Modern instances looks a little suspicious (i mean the list). Does any expert on the topic know about this?--Inayity (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Canary (Islands)

Looks like somebody had some fun by adding the Canary Islands as domestication location for the Canary. I am not sure if this could be correct but I am pretty sure the islands were named after dogs, not birds. 122.108.247.204 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

POV

I have found that this article has developed a POV slanted toward the perception that domestication is exploitation of organisms by humans. This is not nessarily true and should be better left out of the article or included in a 'controversy' section. My opinion is that the information presented in this article is presented as an editorial. We should at least agree on removing weasel and peacock terms.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Domestication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120626141546/http://hcs.osu.edu:80/hcs/TMI/HCS210/HortOrigins/BrDomestic.html to http://hcs.osu.edu/hcs/TMI/HCS210/HortOrigins/BrDomestic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Importance rating - Wikiproject mammals

Given that "the zoomass of wild vertebrates is now vanishingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals" and that the calculated biomass of domestic cattle alone is greater than that of all wild mammals (Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613–636, Table 2) I have raised the Importance rating of this article to High as "it covers a general area of knowledge". Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Mammals • talk • 05:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Domestication of plants

We have a section called the Domestication of plants that says absolutely nothing about the domestication of plants. We have a timeline of some agricultural pursuits across time, and we have a paragraph on what the difference is between some wild species compared to their domesticated counterparts. Because plants have no behavioral change, all of the signs of domestication are phenotypic, and there is more research studies online regarding the difference between the genes responsible for domestication and the genes responsible for selected traits in plants than there is for animals. If anybody has an interest in providing content on the domestication process for plants, we would be pleased to hear from them. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

List of domesticated animals

Hi Mac, you and I appear to be the only two talking out here at present but I notice that others are watching and visiting recent edits. A fair chunk of this article appears under the Dates and Places section, which lists domesticated animals in a table. These appear to have originally been "borrowed" from the main article called List of domesticated animals, which is maintained by a very diligent User:Tamtrible. My view is that the Domestication article should have a section called List of Domesticated Animals with a link to this main article, and no more. Nothing else under it. Else, we begin to form a folk with separate lists and citations (as has begun to happen now), and I am a firm believer in having a Single Source of Truth. Additionally, we also appear to be developing a list of "Modern instances" and Hybrids, I am unsure where these might fit. I seek both your views - plus anybody else's watching - please. Regards, William Harris • talk • 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will lead to WP:CONTENTFORK, and perhaps even WP:POVFORK, as well as wasted effort to try to maintain two redundant lists. A reader-helpful compromise (and more in keeping with WP:SUMMARY) would probably actually be to have a concise summary paragraph here, listing the broad types (cattle, pigs, etc.), in normal prose form, not a list. Something like:

{{Main|List of domesticated animals}}

<--Do not add specific species, subspecies, and varieties here. That's what the main article on that topic is for.-->

Domesticated animals include or have included a variety of mammals and birds. Mammals include various types of [[cattle]], [[horse]], [[goat]], [[sheep]], [[pig]], [etc.] Domesticated birds have included forms of [[chicken]], [[turkey]], [[pigeon]], [etc.] Some additional domesticated animals include [whatever; there aren't many non-mammals and non-birds that qualify as true domesticates].</nowiki>

{{Detail|List of domesticated animals}}

And use links that actually go to the domesticate articles (I didn't check these; some might go to the genus articles). If it's concise enough, the second template, at the end, will be unneeded, but I'd include it if this were two or more paragraphs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mac. I shall wait and see if Tamtrible or others have some thoughts. I have discovered that the list of hybrids has been copied from the Hybrid (biology) article and as interesting as it is, it remains unclear what it has to do with the process of domestication. (I also appreciate what you have taught me about citing primary and secondary sources, as you can clearly see under the newly redeveloped Domestication of Animals section.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no significant thoughts, other than that shortening the list here, and primarily pointing people at the giant list of domesticated animals, would be good. What I might do is specifically list the major ones (eg chickens, goats, cows), and more or less categorically list the minor ones (eg "various ornamental and/or pet birds", "several species of rodent"). I mostly got involved in the other page due to edit wars where certain animals now on the second list kept getting added and removed and added and removed, and it bugged me. Especially since--one of those animals (leopard geckos) is bred in captivity pretty extensively, with several known pattern or color morphs (including 3 different strains of albinism), and another (crested geckos) was once thought *extinct* in the wild, yet you can buy it at Petsmart, because it was so easily captive-bred. Tamtrible (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tamtrible, you have done commendable work, and when I first came across you last July on the List page I was impressed with your approach and diligence. Regarding geckos, it is amazing how quickly phenotypic change can occur in a human-created environment. I have already conducted an "audit" between the two pages and moved the relevant citations that differed onto the List page. Given both your comments, I am leaning towards (1) Renaming the section that is currently called "Approximate Dates and Locations of Domesticated Animals" to "List of Domesticated Animals" followed by the "Main|List of domesticated animals" template. (2) Listing only the major ones in alpha order as a summary paragraph with links to each one's article, because we don't want someone to come along in the future and see a list that might be re-tabled to start the WP:CONTENTFORK again. Therefore, the List page provides a Single Source of Truth with a table of domesticants, dates and locations all with citations. The domestication page will become a sign-post for it without much detail. On the List page, be prepared for the "Location of Origin" to have multiple entries, as it would appear that zooarchaeology and genetic analysis are now revealing multiple domestication events. My thanks to you both. William Harris • talk • 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have found a List of domesticated plants and have added a link to it from the article. Therefore, I have named the chapter that covers both as Lists - people should be able to find what they want from there. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Negative aspects section

Moved from Talk:Domestication § PoV problems with "Negative aspects" section

Someone might review this section for achieving a neutral point of view. For example, negative aspects includes: reduction in size, piebald color, shorter faces with smaller and fewer teeth, diminished horns, smaller brains, simplified behavior patterns. It remains unclear why these are negative traits. The elephant is reduced in size compared to the extinct mammoth - no domestication was necessary to achieve that, nature thought it was a good idea for a warming planet. What is the downside of piebald color, especially when humans are willing to spread the owners of these genes around the globe and mass-produce them, giving their genes a competitive advantage over their wild cousins. Smaller brains - which is usually accompanied by more folds in the brain - is indicated in recent studies for better memory and enhanced processing power. Based on cranial capacity, the human brain is smaller than the Neanderthal brain - nobody is arguing that this is a negative aspect. Shorter faces with fewer teeth; that would be a dog compared to the extant gray wolf, but not the dog compared to its probable ancestor, the megafaunal wolf, which did have a shorter, wider palate (like a large rottwheiler but with massive bone-crunching power). This section is largely based on a book written 50 years ago and experiments with rats; I question its relevance today, its single source, and the objectivity of the editor who placed it in the article. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; see also previous #PoV problems with "Negative aspects" section thread. I smell a strong whiff of the WP:FRINGE side of the animal-rights and don't-mess-with-nature camps here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Section-by-section cleanup

PoV problems with "Negative aspects" section

Moved to Talk:Domestication § Negative aspects section

DobeyDog deleted this entire section, with an edit summary of "This entire section is nothing but POV. And is entirely unnecessary". While I agree that the section has WP:NPOV issues, both of these statements appear to be hyperbole, and we don't nuke large swaths material, much of it reliably sourced, without consensus to do so. We obviously need some information on criticism of domestication and observations of its "negative aspects" for present lack of a better term. The purpose of this article is not to be a domestication fan page, and it needs to present a balanced view of the topic. That said, such a section cannot be some kind of "domestication is the devil's work" rant, either. I would suggest that DobeyDog (being the principal objector) outline a) the scope/tone/overall problems with the section, and b) any specific claims which appear to be unverifiable, either because they cannot be sourced, or because the cited sources are being misused in a WP:OR fashion, and indicate the nature of this misuse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The quality of the sources matter. The only "science" in that entire section is the part that lists changes that come as a result of domestication. But even that is ruined by putting it under a section titled "negative aspects of" which is inherently POV. That should be labeled something like "effects of domestication", or "consequences of domestication". The rest isn't even justifiable it should either be removed or labeled "criticism of" or something similar to make it clear that what's being presented isn't part of scientific consensus. If I went to the evolution page and saw half the page taken up by a section treating creationism as if it was hard science. I wouldn't trust that page as a source of information regardless of how many sources it listed. That's the problem with that section it conflates propaganda with science. That's not presenting a balanced view of the topic. That's making it harder for people to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.DobeyDog (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DobeyDog: Generally agreed. I can definitely identify two kinds of advocacy/activism going on in this section. The first is the "down with designer breeds" viewpoint, which is often very confused. "Designer breed" generally actually refers to inter-breed hybrids like the labradoodle, and this is process actually increases genetic diversity (see Hybrid vigor). What the anti-"designer" people are really concerned about (when they're not commingling "don't you dare pollute my favorite breed" PoV with stuff that actually makes sense) is "puppy mill"-style incautious breeding that has little regard for genetic defects, such as the hip dysplasia that now plagues and may well doom several dog breeds. The second form of PoV being subtly advanced in this section is the "humans should always leave nature alone" über-hippy treehugger nonsense, which almost always flows directly from the same mouths as anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-pasteurization, and other WP:FRINGE stuff. The viewpoints exist in the real world and are notable enough that our articles have to account for them, but we cannot repeat their anti-humanist, basically spiritualist Gaia/Tao claims in WP's own voice. Forking this into separate sections on the science of domestication's consequences, and criticisms of domestication (which may or many not be scientific, depending on the specific criticism) would probably be the best first step toward cleaning up the material without engaging in wholesale deletionism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Degrees" and "Tame or domesticated" sections

There are two sections in this article that are uncited, and in the case of TAME OR DOMESTICATED appear to be personal conjecture. I invite editors to supply citations to support what is being stated in these 2 sections, which are slightly related. If there has been no development in a month's time then my intention is to delete TAME OR DOMESTICATED completely and review what should happen with DEGREES at that time. I seek other editors input on this matter (Mac are you still about on this page?). Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@William Harris: We shouldn't delete entire sections of an article (especially when both already have some, albeit insufficient, sourcing, and are not "uncited"). WP:V policy requires of non-controversial information only that it be sourceable not sourced. Obviously it should be sourced, but that's not a basis for wholesale deletion except where there's genuine controversy, when it's a WP:BLP, where it's potentially misleading medical information, and under a few other circumstances.

A few minutes on Google: [9] [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. As of this exact writing, scholar.google.com is temporarily down, so the best material isn't G-search available right this moment, but should be in an hour or a day. Even Darwin wrote about the difference between domestication and taming (and whether domestic-wild hybridization will result in domesticated animals or not) [17], though the distinction is much, much older. The same search also coughed up several results specifically on the cat issue, though I think we should look for actual journal articles on that; newspapery stuff is not reliable enough for such fine-grained questions as how to define "domestication" within the context of a specific species and its ethology.

OxfordHandbooks.com, if you have access to it, produces some probably relevant literature review results in multiple fields [18], including "The Moral Relevance of the Distinction Between Domesticated and Wild Animals" (Palmer 2012), "Animal Domestication" (Outram 2013), "Domesticating Animals in Africa" (Gifford-Gonzalez & Hanotte 2013), "Early Farming and Domestication" (Barker 2009), "The Emergence and Spread of Herding in Northern Africa: A Critical Reappraisal" (Di Lernia 2013), "Animals and Social Relations" (Marciniak & Pollard 2014), "Pet" (MacKinnon 2014), etc. This is just one of many serious academic search resources, several of which any experienced and regular WP editor can request access to at the link given toward the start of the previous sentence. Oh, another is "The Neolithic on the Plateau" (Özbaşaran 2011), which covers proto-domestication, a term our article has not even introduced yet.

Anyway, instead of a "fix it soon or else" ultimatum (especially during a holiday season and a year end/beginning period which mark an annual low in editorial activity and attention), it's generally most useful to WP:BEBOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT when it comes to removing and correcting WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems, if they can be correctly identified. I've just done a series of edits in this vein that both improve the text of the sections under question (the one immediately below it also badly needs work, as it is infected with two distinct kinds of activism), and make it clearer what to source next. If I were not ridiculously busy right now, I'd probably take an afternoon to just do all that sourcing myself, and to improve the sections in question a lot more in the process. Even if what's in them right now is sourced fully, they'll still be a little weak. It might make sense to nominate this at Articles for improvement, to attract additional editorial attention, because this article is actually really important as a basic part of the encyclopedia. It's sad and disappointing that the various animals and life sciences and history and anthropology and environment and sustainability and etc. projects have neglected this article for so long, given how central the topic is to humanity no longer being a near-extinct species of naked hunter-gatherer hominids with crude tools. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mac, thanks for your replies and restructure of this section. Page stats for this article show that it has 154 watchers, of whom 15 have looked at recent edits, so we are not alone here even if other editors choose to remain silent. (If nothing else, they will learn how those of Hibernian-lineage conduct themselves in agreement/disagreement.) We both agree that this page is important to both of us and that its profile needs to be raised, as each has stated on the Talk page. Stats show that it receives between 400-600 hits per day, some days peaking to around the 800 mark, with 17,000 views over the past month so it is of use to users across the English-speaking world. I regard the article as dancing around the periphery of the domestication process and not getting "stuck into it", therefore I have raised the heading level of the sections now retitled Domestication of Animals and the Domestication of Plants. By this time tomorrow the bots will have reindexed these across the internet so that a search-engine will have them served up among the offerings if a user should do a search on either of these titles. You know how this works, and our daily hits should increase.

Regarding TAME OR DOMESTICATED, it was not to be lost - I intended in February to transfer the content to the Tame animal article (it certainly needs some beefing up) and simply put a link to it from this article; if people wanted to pursue the difference they would have been directed to the other page. If you wish to keep it then I will leave it in your hands to follow up citations as you deem fit in your own time - I like people who takes responsibility.

I have a particular interest in the process of domestication, and how it relates to animals in particular. My focus will be in redeveloping that section. We can talk again about the DEGREES section once I have that completed, as both will relate to each other. I suggest that we relocate as much of the first 3 sentences of this article under a section called Etymology, which will also include the use of other word terms, leaving the lead paras free for saying something valuable to readers about the domestication process proper. We need to use the words domestication of animals and domestication of plants in the first sentence; once again so the bots will do their work. We can later develop a strategy for identifying Wikipedia articles into which we can link the Domestication article, boosting its profile further, but first we must make sure we have something valuable to offer to begin with. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "It's sad and disappointing that the various animals and life sciences and history and anthropology and environment and sustainability and etc. projects have neglected this article for so long, given how central the topic is to humanity..." You might need to select closer allies. I have just added Wikiproject Agriculture to our list (and I assume domestication might be highly important to agriculture, else it would not exist) and am giving thought to adding Wikiproject Forestry and possibly Wikiproject Horticulture & Gardening. (We should consider axing "Plants" and "Animals" as we are simply too far removed from their spheres of interest - this article will never be highly important to such broad topics.) Regarding Archaeology, if you really want some input from them, then perhaps linking into WikiProject Ancient Near East, where the first agriculture and animal husbandry occurred. I would have thought that "Agriculture" and "Mammals" would have been plenty - we need to focus. But if you are really passionate about this subject, then stuff them! - you are a smart man, why not create a Wikiproject Domestication whose scope spans them all? Regards, William Harris • talk • 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mac, I just discovered why the other projects may exhibit little interest in this article - take a look at Talk:Selective breeding and the list of related Wikiprojects and their ratings. Poor Domestication misses out. I now propose to you something that might sound extraordinary - the domestication process and the selective breeding process are separate, occurred at different times, and involve different gene expressions (Larson and friends). The first step was domestication, the second step later was selective breeding. ("How do I stop it from biting me?" is a higher-priority question than "Does it come in tan?") I will elaborate further soon, and once we have articulated the difference between the two then the other projects may have a renewed interest. Regards, William Harris • talk • 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, these are definitely related but separate topics. I'm not sure how separately we can treat them without WP:NOR danger, though. Some forms of selective breeding would almost certainly have happened from the start ("only one pup in this wolf litter did not try to eat my children by the time it was a juveile, so kill the rest and eat & skin them, then breed the safer one with the safer one we kept from last year"). Early selective breeding would have been entirely for behavior, later for productivity (and related factors – fecundity, hardiness, etc.), only comparatively recently for appearance and for other fine qualities, a pursuit of a post-horticultural aristocracy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No issue regarding WP:NOR; it has been stated by much greater minds than mine. It is just a matter of citing them in the article. Regards, William Harris • talk • 05:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now added a cited and physically supported Domestication Categories section under the Domestication of Animals chapter. I have removed the section titled Degrees for 3 reasons: (1) It is not cited and provides no physical support. (2) People have added lists of their favorite animals to it that is original research - uncited and also very subjective. (3) The scene is now set for the addition of the framework for animal domestication, which conflicts with what is claimed under the unsupported Degrees section. I will post this in the next day or so - it will be a substantial addition to this article. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "tame" plant, therefore the term relates to animals only. As the chapter Domestication of Animals is the one I have an interest in redeveloping, I have defined the difference (with citations) under that chapter, and deleted the uncited Tame or Domesticated chapter. Please let me know if this is an issue. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It verges on a dictionarian distinction, and should be easy to cover in brief, without all that OR about "levels". Much of it wasn't wrong, but it was unsourced, novel analysis. There may even be a source somewhere that addresses this, but until then we don't need that stuff, and should be fine with just some definitional citations distinguishing taming from domestication. Needn't even have a section on it right now. (That said, I actually have heard "tame" or "taming" applied to plants, but it jargonistic term of art for things like carefully directing garden and ornamental plant growth and propagation; it's essentially a metaphor, and not directly comparable to, e.g., taming lions and elephants for circuses).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Animals" section

Additionally, as for the ANIMALS section that has become a monument to Jared Diamond, this work was previously stated by Hale (1969) and Price (1984) - the book titled Guns, Germs and Steel was not the original work. Some editor in the past has done much further work finding citations to support it. I suggest this be considered for some form of rectification as well. William Harris • talk • 03:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, though we're supposed to cite secondary sources like Diamond, not rely entirely on primary source research papers. The problem is mostly in depending on one secondary source, and a populist one, instead of multiple literature reviews.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me suggest that Diamond in this instance is a tertiary source; he has no real expertise in this field apart from what he has taken from the work of others. It is not that he is off-track, it is that it detracts from those who proposed these ideas first. We have 3 primary sources developing the same theme: Hale et al (1969), Price et al (1984) and Price et al (2002), all summarised as a lit search in Zeder 2012. Given that Zeder is backed by Greger Larson, I'm with these guys. We now have a domestication theory expert (Zeder) teamed up with the zooarcheology/ancient DNA crew (Larson & teams/associates). Haven't heard of Greger Larson? - http://www.palaeobarn.com/ and have a look at the publications. You have heard of his various teams' work if not his name: Where the domestic chicken came from. Where the domestic pig came from. Next stop: where the domestic dog came from! And this is why the Domestication article is so important right now, we now have the DNA technology to unravel ancient DNA and tell us what we once dreamed of knowing. This consortium is also looking at the very genes which differ between wild and domesticated species, and have forecast that within a decade they will have a full explanation of the domestication process. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Article in NYT on Larson & consortium: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html?_r=1 William Harris • talk • 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not how WP defines a tertiary source, though. A tertiary source is another encyclopedia, a dictionary, database, directory, third-party abstract, or other pure or near-pure regurgitation of data without any WP:AIES work, but Diamond's book consists almost entirely of AEIS (perhaps more than is warranted from the sources he used). It's also from a reputable non-fiction publisher, so that makes it presumptively a high-quality secondary source by default. However, some of his conclusions have been broadly questioned, by both other secondary sources and by primary scholarly research, so it's probably a middling-quality SS, and his views should be attributed directly, not cited as if reliable facts. I agree that citations of Diamond, and even of Zeder's literature review, should not be used to occlude the actual researchers, but WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR really, really want us to cite SS like these, not just PS research papers. I have no issues with the folks you want to cite, of course. There's also already been a lot of work on dogs; I forget who's been doing it exactly (I was looking at this ~6 mo. ago, and just a little), but I seem to recall that they've figured out that DNA-viable Ice Age wolf remains are directly related to modern dogs (I hope I'm remembering this correctly). It's something I encountered in passing while looking for papers on ancient cat DNA. So: Generally thumbs up, but just want to be clear that we're not removing Diamond and other non-journal SS, but rather not allowing their misuse to sound more authoritative than they are or to mislead readers into thinking that theories he/they didn't come up with are his/theirs, which should be properly credited; and that we need to keep relying on secondary sources for any AIES claims, even if we also add citations to the original papers behind them. To me it's always safe to do: General/summarized claim here. More specifically, a detail that's important, which the SS didn't really get into, and which doesn't constitute an independent AIES claim we have to have a SS for. However according to... insert directly attributed, maybe directly quoted, recent PS counter-claim mentioned in at least one lit. rev. Hope that helps, and sorry I'm not in a position right now to really dig into this with you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For what I have been preparing, I am using BOTH the primaries and the modern "domestication heavy-weight" Larson as the secondary. I won't be posting it until late January when the holiday period draws to a close. For the dogs, you are recalling Skoglund (2015) and his Taimir wolf nuclear DNA analysis - Taimir wolf/gray wolf/dogs diverged 40,000 YBP from a common ancestor. (It is all on "my" page at the Origin of the domestic dog - I carry all this stuff in my head; I really should find another hobby......) Regards, William Harris • talk • 05:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Diamond, under Behavioral Preadaption this is what he actually said, not what was previously depicted in the article. He never said that these were the 6 signs of domesticated animals, he said that the ancestors of a few wild large land-dwelling herbivores (i.e. cattle) must have exhibited these characteristics. This was then followed by a past editor counter-arguing with uncited original research against these "6 signs of domestication" using examples of carnivores etc. That was not what Diamond had said. Sadly, Diamond did not cite any primary research, however I am not concerned about this. I hope you approve of what I have done with Diamond. Regards, William Harris • talk • 23:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems entirely reasonable. I agree it's OR (namely novel reinterpretation) to change Diamond's ideas about the likely characteristics of the ancestral population of something with some kind of "6 signs of domestication" after the fact. If anything, it's an outright error, not just a questionable interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Domestication of animals - proposal to SPINOFF

Hello All, WP:SUMMARY advises that within an article "a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." The article size is now 78kb. Therefore, it is my intention to WP:SPINOFF the chapter on "Domestication of animals" into its own article, appropriately linked to the "Domestication" page. Your comments on this proposal, please? William Harris • WikiProject Mammals • talk • 09:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Now actioned. Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Mammals • talk • 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The summary here of the spinoff article is too short; it should cover all the main points, and be several paragraphs, since effectively half of the whole topic. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE covers this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I will get onto it next. The complicating factor is that the lead paras for Domestication are also lead for Domestication of animals. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Now amended, please advise if further work is recommended. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure the lead material from the one can be compressed in the other. It will iron out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing definitions

The article currently leaves the reader confused as to what domestication is. The opening sentence is fine. But, later in the article in the "Definitions" section a new, rather complex, definition is introduced. But, this second (apparently recent) definition is supported only by 2 primary sources and these are both by the same author. Is it not possible to find secondary sources to support this as a mainstream view?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source added. The first definition ("which is fine") is a cut-down version of the second - no new definition had been added. William Harris • talk • 08:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the secondary source. I still find the definitions confusing or conflicting. The first is about the relationship to humans, thereby excluding some potential examples. The second is about the relationship between organisms, thereby including these other potential examples. I know definitions can be extremely hard to tie down. Personally, I do not care which is used. Both can be discussed, but I think the reader needs to be informed that different definitions exist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur that you are correct and there has been a shift from humans to organisms. However, that first sentence is easy to follow and is what search engines will deliver when people key in domestication. Nice and simple, children can follow it. People can get a good overview of the subject in the first few paragraphs. The second is the full definition for those who wish to delve deeper into the subject and the Sykes secondary citation gives its history. It is a compromise to bring together the many past definitions used by zoologists, botanists and etymologists - it covers animals, plants and insects. It also sets the scene very well for her now widely accepted 3-pathways theory of animal domestication from 2012, which she expanded to include plants in 2015. (I have not referred to it in the Domestication article because I believe that it needs some further work, yet I was surprised to learn that our plant friends have already reflect it in several secondary sources!) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If the definition has changed, I think we should be alerting readers to this in the opening paragraph, rather than giving them one definition and then asking them to consider another one much later in the article. By the way, do you not consider insects to be animals? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, insects are from the phylum Arthropoda within the kingdom of Animalia; they may not be mammals but they certainly are not plants and we share a common ancestor (thanks for the reminder, I needed to add Beekeeping to the linked articles). I do not have a watch on this page as there are others more interested and more capable than I in its safe keeping, and I noticed your post while visiting here on another matter. I suggest that the other editors who frequent this page would be better placed than I to make a decision - how did you envisage the form of the alert in the opening paragraph? Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, be careful on that one; I think some source classify them as semi-domesticated or even non-domesticate. But I've not looked into that in about 8 years, so I'm going by old reading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent definition

I have some concerns about the recent edit which has changed the definition of "domestication".

1) This definition appears to be a very recent (2015) primary source. I am not averse whatsoever to the use of primary sources in the main body of text, but don't we really need some time and a secondary source to back up this definition as being widely accepted by other experts?

2) The use of the word "mutualism" means that both the domesticator and the domesticate benefit. How does a broiler chicken benefit from being domesticated?

3) The use of the word "consciously" is extremely problematic. We discuss domestication between ants and fungi. Are we arguing that ants are consciously cultivating the fungus?

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am just passing through and found this section. You really need to try to keep yourself up to date with the literature within the discipline of domestication, which I have no intention of attempting to do here. Let me address your point (2), how do chickens benefit? Chickens were once found only in a small part of SE Asia. Their genes are now found across the entire planet, but their ancestors are extinct. In terms of evolutionary biology, that is a benefit. Similar to dogs, which are also found across the planet but the population of lupus that gave rise to them is extinct. The definition section contains a link to Biological mutualism, you might try clicking on it to gain an appreciation. If you have some ethical issues, then there is a section in the article titled "Negative aspects" - feel free to add to it. William Harris • talk • 20:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. My understanding is that the ancestral species of the modern chicken hybrid is the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) which, to the best of my knowledge, is not extinct. The typical domestic broiler chicken lives to only 5-6 weeks of age and never reproduces. How can this be a "benefit"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you seek clarification then I suggest you inform yourself by reading the cited articles, rather than asking others to keep you informed via a talk page on Wikipedia - that is why we cite material. (In my view, the only value this encyclopedia provides is a list of referenced sources - the rest is interpretation, and sometimes conjecture or misadvice via copy-and-paste from suspect webpages.) Living things are born into this world then they die - one way or the other - if you would like to discuss the futility of all life then the philosophy pages are for you. William Harris • talk • 21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am really not sure about why you seem to be adopting this attitude. Talk pages are there to inform other editors about information related to the article. I am not seeking clarification. I am making a definitive statement that the domestic chicken is derived from the red junglefowl. I am making a definitive statement that the domestic broiler chicken does not benefit from domestication. I'm sorry that you take such a dim view about Wikipedia - I certainly see it as far more than just a list of referenced sources. Regarding the recent definition, I will be editing this to delete the reference to "conscious" unless you or another editor can provide RS that ants or fungi are able to make conscious decisions, or we delete the ant/fungi example. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just noticed you have made the revert I was considering. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The definition is now what was originally there before another editor changed it outside of what the citation said - thanks to you for flagging it. You appear to be missing my point - Canis lupus is not extinct either, that is not what I said. Just because a human lives to be 80 years old eating broiler chickens then dies, one might ask how that is beneficial as well. From an evolutionary biology point of view, it is about the continuation and wider distribution of genes. Domestication is evolution speeded up (Larson 2014). Your question borders on philosophy and the meaning of life, which is outside the scope of this article. William Harris • talk • 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted my question when our definition of domestication included the word "mutualism" (and it currently still links to Mutualism (biology). Our definition of Mutualism (biology) is Mutualism is the way two organisms of different species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other. (my emphasis). I was enquiring what benefits exist for the domesticated broiler chicken, so according to our definition, it is well within the scope of this article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you take your issue with the Wikipedia definition of Biological mutualism to its Talk page, and pose the same question there. Regarding the definition of domestication, you might read the cited articles to ascertain how the domestic chicken - and not just individual broiler chickens - benefit as a whole. One of them is the spread of genes across the planet, thereby enhancing its chances of future survival as a species. There are also other reasons, and the topic is much wider than just chickens. William Harris • talk • 09:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I chose the broiler chicken specifically as the chickens we eat are only 5 to 6 weeks old and have not reached reproductive age. The parent stock have been bred to be so large they would not survive in the wild. This is not a "mutual benefit". This form of domestication is a dependancy. They have no future survival as an independent species. This is relevant to this talk page while the link to Mutualism (biology) exists. DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lovely. When you have read the relevant citations supporting the definition on the Domestication page and understand the implications, then we can have a conversation. Until then, this serves no purpose. William Harris • talk • 09:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article appears to be causing concerns. Does anybody have an opinion on changing the opening sentence to include the entire definition found under the Definition section, so that it would read: Domestication is the scientific theory concerning "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate." Or should we stay with a simplified, cut down, amended version that is easy to read? William Harris • talk • 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting those words (or the concept behind those words) back into the opening. I don't particularly have a strong preference either way, but I think for brevity and clarity's sake, we ought to simplify the wording if possible. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on this. Wolfdog (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wolfdog, I would be pleased to work with you, and for you to take the lead on this. You already know my strong position - anything written must reflect what the researchers meant if we are to use their citations to support it. Because the topic is contentious, citations will need to appear in the opening, else casual visitors will be tempted to alter it without reading the article to gain an understanding of what it means. We need to be aware that search engines will return the lead sentence (or two) on any www search conducted on the term "domestication" - across the English-speaking world - so I would like to see something concise and accurate. Other key stakeholders with a point of view to be considered are editors DrChrissy and SMcCandlish, who either have a watch or visit here from time to time. I look forward to seeing your proposal on this Talk page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have indicated above, I have concerns with this definition including aspects of benefit do the domesticant. In terms of fitness, there are domestic cattle, turkeys, and chickens all who can not breed without the direct intervention of humans. By removing these aspects. we could shorten the definition to - ..."a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest. , and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate." DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with DrChrissy's abbreviation of the sentence. I agree that the benefit issue is a complex and controversial one to be expounded upon later in the article. William Harris, do you feel that DrChrissy's suggested edit accurately reflects the original meaning with integrity, without bias, etc.? Wolfdog (talk)

Hello Wolfdog, I am happy with the reduction in size, however I am not happy with the removal of the word "mutualistic". The full definition, and each of its included elements, are supported by primary, secondary and tertiary sources - including the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology - that meet the requirements of WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. I supply to you the results of a search in Google Scholar on the words mutualism domestication [19] that returns 8 pages of relevant citations. It is clear that mutualism has been a key tenant of modern domestication theory for the past 20 years, and I have yet to be provided with one citation that rebuts mutualism being so. Yet, we are to reject all of these researchers and their findings on the basis of what, exactly? Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)................(PS: Don't get me started on a search on the words fitness domestication - I stopped counting after 15 pages.)

Zeder's own proposed definition certainly includes mutualism; however, at the same time, Zeder also recognizes alternative perspectives: "Domestication is frequently defined from the perspective of the domesticator, emphasizing the role of humans in separating a target domesticate from free-living populations and assuming mastery over all aspects of its life cycle. Domestication has also been viewed as a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship that benefits both domesticator and domesticate..."

User:William Harris is right that mutualism comes up a lot in discussions regarding the definition of domestication (see here, for yet another example I found). However, our exact contention here seems to be: Is mutualism a prerequisite or imperative for defining domestication? (If yes, then obviously it should appear immediately in the opening sentence, otherwise it can be discussed elsewhere.)

The definitions proposed in the following sources do NOT mention mutualism by any name or consider the domesticate-benefiting theory necessary to the definition:

• Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals -- "Domestication is the process whereby populations of animals change genetically and phenotypically in response to the selection pressure associated with a life under human supervision" (42). (FOCUS IS ON ANIMALS - IT FORGETS ABOUT THE PLANT KINGDOM - CROPS, FOREST PLANTATIONS, MUSHROOM FARMS - WGH)
• National Geographic -- "Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use. [...] Domesticated plants and animals must be raised and cared for by humans. Domesticated species are not wild." (DOES NOT INCLUDE COMMENSUALS - THE WOLF WAS NOT ADAPTED FOR HUMAN USE - WGH)
• Dictionary.com -- Domesticate: "to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild" [my italics]. (TAME IS NOT DOMESTICATED, A LION CAN BE TAMED BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT DOMESTICATED - WGH)
• Encyclopædia Britannica -- "Domestication, the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them." (DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TWO OF THE THREE PATHWAYS - WGH)

• (id=M4lSAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA735&lpg=PA735&dq=domestication+connotations&source=bl&ots=zZ7Bv5s2OB&sig=kRQ25vVNkk4ov77TRKV3VRYYwno&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3kO_yo4nNAhVIWj4KHVQ0A9YQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=domestication%20connotations&f=false The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-gatherers: "...here I use it [domestication (specifically, it seems, plant domestication)] in its morphogenetic sense to mean a process of inadvertent and/or deliberate intervention by people in the reproduction of culturally selected plants that leads to their reproductive isolation from their wild progenitors and increases their dependence on sustained human care for their survival" [my italics]. (DOES NOT INCLUDE ANIMALS - WGH)
• Domestication (by Clive Roots): "Domestication: The continual control and breeding of wild animals for man's benefit, eventually resulting in changes to their genetic makeup and appearance." (CLOSEST - WGH)

Furthermore, the source Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory discusses both definitions, demonstrating some of the nuances. Wolfdog (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wolfdog, thanks very much for looking into this. I am much more comfortable with these types of definitions which focus on the actions of humans (and I think this is what would be expected by the vast majority of readers who would not understand the ant/fungus "domestication" relationship). There are, of course, examples where the domestication process is mutualistic, but there are so many questions about the benefits received by the domesticant that I feel any definition including the term will attract repeated attacks in the future. I feel we should move the definition back to a human oriented one, but of course, other definitions and interpretations can be discussed in the body of the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comments in brackets against each point. It would appear that the definitions people are most comfortable with are those that have been superceded by what we know from archaeology and ancient DNA. Please have a read through the section in the article on "Domestication of animals" then re-read these definitions - I put it to you that they are from the past and no longer fit with the content of the article. Chrissy when you say the definition should be more human oriented, the current definition in the first line of the article is human oriented, is it not? To be clear, that is what we are talking about here, we are not talking about changing the definition given in the Definition section. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is about a "mutualistic relationship". The definitions suggested by Wolfdog are "humans selecting animals and plants" - something which I believe we should return to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, what do you mean by "No..." what is it you are saying no to? William Harris • talk • 22:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My "no" was in reply to your question about the first sentence of the article being human oriented. It is not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Given that the full definition provided in the "Definition" section of the body of the article is not to change, that there appears to be no other interested parties in this matter, and that our discussion has prompted me to provide further elaboration of the 3 pathways (my recent edit), then I will go with your proposal - Wolfdog as leader to make the necessary amendment. Regards, William Harris • talk • 23:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to defend the definitions I bulleted... except for the ones that focus ONLY on animals or ONLY on plants, which I agree are shortsighted (let me know if that interests you); otherwise, we now seem to be at the point of wording the opening sentence. I would still make some changes. Here was Chrisy's suggestion followed by my own (with my edits in square brackets):

• "Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest."
• "Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which one [group of] organism[s] assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another [group] to secure a more predictable supply of [resources {from that second group?}]."

My edits here intend to avoid the idea of simple one-on-one taming (as in WH's interpretation of the Dictionary.com definition) in which one individual is taming another; on the contrary, this wording might better clarify that whole groups are influencing other groups across generations. Is there anything else that needs to be added or amended? Wolfdog (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not use Dictionary.com and am unclear of what definition you refer to. I used Zeder's definition, therefore I would prefer to stay with the term "organism" as she wrote it, else we will need to remove the supporting citations in the first line, and we all know how that will end - not well. Once again, taming is not domestication - we say so in the article and describe the difference (chapter "Domestication" of animals, para 2, line 1). So your first point would be my preference due to both its accuracy and its longevity. Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• (By the way, the term "tame" is also used in other dictionaries, like the Oxford English dictionaries.) Wolfdog (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Change made as per Wolfdog's suggestion and citations removed to avoid inaccurate referencing (cites are not needed in the lead). DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor can it be cited because it was cobbled together by both of you (above) as your original thoughts, now forms original research, and can be subject to challenge under WP:NOR. William Harris • talk • 09:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WH.... Not sure what you mean by "cobbled together," and the "original research" label seems unjustified. Paraphrasing is a widely used and accepted scholarly method for taking the meaning of an author's words and putting it into one's own words, as long as the original author is credited. In fact, paraphrasing is presumably THE main method for citing material on Wikipedia (see WP:PARAPHRASE). We haven't at all changed the meaning by simply, in our opinion, making the phrasing clearer. However, DrChrissy, I certainly think we should put the citation back in the lede; close-paraphrasing requires an inline citation to avoid being plagiaristic, regardless of whether it's in the lede or not. Wolfdog (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree totally about the paraphrasing - that is what we are here to do as editors. I agree also about adding a citation/s. Could I leave this to you, please. The list of definitions you gave all relate to humans domesticating other organisms, but we have used "organisms domesticating other organisms". I believe your knowledge of the subject matter is considerably superior to mine. This might require multiple citations to indicate we are paraphrasing several sources. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrased from whom? Zeder 2012 was based on Zeder 2006, where she expanded on mutualism as the key principle in domestication based on earlier work (some of that 8 pages of citations supporting mutualism that I have mentioned above). You both have agreed to drop it out because one of you believes that instead of mutualism occurring at the species-level (as per the definition of biological mutualism), that all individual members of Gallus gallus are broiler chickens and that is not a mutual relationship, as if production-line broiler chickens represent the entire species. That there are breeders/fanciers/geneticists/zoos/research institutions that continue to improve the stain well beyond its wild cousin, and feed it regularly, protect it from predators, care and provide veterinary assistance to it so that the improved strain can spread its genes across the planet to help ensure its survival, appears to have been overlooked. It was domesticated 6,000 YBP and did not become a livestock species until 2,000 years ago. The opening definition no longer reflects Zeder and cannot bear her citation. You have deleted biological mutualism from the definition and have now convinced yourselves that this is paraphrasing what she said - it is not. William Harris • talk • 23:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, we are not paraphrasing a single source (Zeder), we are paraphrasing several definitions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my point was that Zeder cannot be used as a supporting citation. William Harris • talk • 20:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. WH, you're arguing that by removing the word "mutualistic" from the definition, we have removed the most essential/foundational kernel from that definition. In this case, indeed it would be preferable to paraphrase a definition that doesn't already start with the idea of mutualism. Unfortunately, all of the sources I found are limited, including even the one that WH seemed most approving of, calling it the "closest," because it still excludes plants, fungi, etc. The Zeder definition is more inclusive in that it uses the term "organism." In any case, I'm adding back the citation. If we feel a note must be added that the term "mutualistic" is not included due to contentions, then so be it... at least for now. Wolfdog (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bees, again...

Hello. I am an editor working on improving articles on beekeeping and bees in general (they're a disaster, especially beekeeping ones). There is some confusion as to whether bees are domesticated or not. There seems to be confusion here too. I have read through the archived talk sections to find that bees used to be included in this article but were later removed. I also saw that Apis mellifera is listed as domesticated on the list of domesticated animals, but apis cerana is only a semi domesticate.... is there consensus in the literature about bees or just more debate? I appreciate your help. Cliff (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Realized it's probably better to have this conversation in one place. If you're interested in joining the conversation, please go to Talk:Beekeeping#Domestication THANKS! Cliff (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Cucurbita pepo

Cucurbita pepo should be included in the history of agriculture section. It appears this plant was domesticated in the Americas at the same time as the Asian grain domestications.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5314/9322600:1700:6D90:79B0:B8E6:A730:2994:D8B2 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

See Cucurbita for details. Hundreds of species were domesticated around the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Darwin

I see you have "wiped out" my new section "Darwin?". Much obliged.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

As the editor who removed it advised in the edit summary, a Talk page is not a forum for discussion nor expressing personal conjecture. It added no value to the article. William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear William Harris,

You dismissed my contribution as "personal conjecture". I am afraid that you were "wide off the mark". Misunderstanding appears not to be a "reliable tutor".

Regards.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I did no such thing - read what I wrote again, please, this time carefully. The editor who removed your comment referred you to WP:FORUM. I would refer that editor to WP:TPO. William Harris • (talk) • 12:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no hard feelings. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

None taken; I should have probably have spelt it out a bit better. Additionally, under WP:TPO the editor should not have removed your comment. William Harris • (talk) • 20:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

non human domestication

the article opens with defining domestication as relationship between one group of organisms and another group of organisms. But then it entirely focuss on domestication by humans. I think considering the opening it should more thoroughly discuss domestication by other animals (fungus-growing termites etc.). I for one arrived at the "domestication" article from fungus growing termites, as I was curious what other non-human domestications have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.169.12 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Separate history section

I don't think this edit is an improvement. With just {{expand section}} and no text I think this doesn't add much. There is already history spread throughout and so this is not needed. If someone wrote a history section which cut across all the different types then that would be useful. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I really like the opening of the article by defining the domestication and relating with the domestication on different species (animals, humans, microbes). The pictures seems relevant which makes the readers very clear to understand. I think it would be great if there could be separate and detailed section for individual topics. In general the article is very promising and easy to understand. Ctngirl (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

swan?

swan are tame not domesticeted Petstore (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Formatting ISBNs

It is standard practice to format ISBNs as printed in books. Wikipedia articles are for humans to read, so their formatting must be human-readable. It is certainly easier to read "978-1-85728-537-6" than "9781857285376"; humans find it hard to parse and recall long strings of numbers. It may be that not many readers find it necessary to copy out an ISBN or to read it out to someone else, but it is not for us to say that they should not be allowed to do that, and if so, their action must be facilitated by standard formatting. We should restore the ISBN formatting immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is human-reading these as if they were sentences. The hyphenless form offers far more utility, because you can copy-paste one into Google and search for isbn 9781857285376 and get immediate and extensive useful results. But this does not work with the version with hyphens in it, which often turns up nothing that's on-topic but the WP article you copy-pasted it from! A bare-numeric ISBN is by far the fastest way to look up a book by ISBN (offers more untility than clicking on it here and navigating through our own clumsy "service" for looking up books by ISBN). Furthermore, the hyphenated form is not standardized, and different venues that makes use of hyphens at all do so inconsistently (e.g. 978-1857285376, etc.) Even aside from these concerns, we would prefer the hyphenless version anyway as more concise, since the hyphens are extraneous and unnecessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No. As stated, articles, including ISBNs, are formatted for people to read. Inconsistency is a fact of life in anything done by humans, and we have to live with that; the fact that a service is inconsistently delivered does not mean it is useless or should not be done at all. However, tools such as ISBN Tool allow us to format ISBNs systematically. It is, in addition, standard practice both on Wikipedia and in books to format ISBNs, and we should certainly not try to create a separate standard in this article. The status quo ante, both in the article and everywhere else, is for ISBNs to be formatted as best we can achieve. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Being emphatic with a bunch of "no" and just repeating yourself isn't making any argument. I've provided real and provable reasons to use the hyphenless format, and you've done nothing but make up a fake rule "to format ISBNs as printed in books" which is not to be found anywhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no call whatsoever to become abusive, as I have made a series of solid and substantive arguments, which I'd have thought decisive in the mind of any objective observer. You appear however to be ignoring the basic point, which I am obliged to repeat since you have not addressed it: there is no call whatsoever to treat this one article differently from every other article on Wikipedia. You have boldly declared ISBN formatting pointless, ignoring that humans find it helpful, as demonstrated by the simple fact that they do it whenever books are published. ISBNs are normally formatted conventionally both on-Wiki and off it, and we should do the same here. I rebutted your point about inconsistency, since you made it; actually we can be quite consistent by using a tool such as the one linked above, so there is no justification for throwing away formatting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone disagreeing with you and your argument-to-emotion style is in no way at all "abusing" you. There absolutely is not a "standard" on Wikipedia to format ISBNs the way you want to format them;; you just made that up out of nowhere. Their formatting is entirely random, sometimes mirroring the over-hyphenated form often (not consistently) found on book colophons, sometimes using the much less hyphenated form found on Amazon and various other book sites, and sometimes using no hyphens (a style also found frequently off of Wikipedia). Repeatedly asserting that it's a "standard" here does not make it one, and the idea is a fantasy. I've provided a provably true rationale for why the hyphenless form is better, and you've provided an opinion about "readability" that is of no consequence. The only reason we provide ISBNs, or any other particular detail, in a citation is to make it easier for readers to find sources and verify that the claims the WP article is making are backed by sources. That is the sole purpose of citations and their presence here, including all of their details. They are not encyclopedia content. To the extent you are injecting unnecessarily hyphen-strewn ISBNs, you are directly interfering with the usability of the citations and defeating, not helping, their purpose here. PS: You are not one to complain about "throwing away formatting", since you insist on forcibly suppressing the display of all authors after the third one, despite us having already coded all the authors. This serves no purpose whatsoever, and is basically "user-hateful" instead of "user-friendly" behavior, making it harder for readers to be certain they have found the correct source publication when they go looking. That's especially problematic in an article like this one in which several authors tend to dominate and are cited numerous times in various of their publications, often with many of the same co-authors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Far from "argument-to-emotion", I have clearly and sharply refuted your arguments, such as they are, one after another. Your "provably true rationale" is true neither of machine-reading - it is the work of an instant for any tool to discard hyphens if it is working without them - nor of humans, who invariably find long strings of unformatted numbers tricky. You are trying to do something new and exceptional against all custom. Your unsupported assertion "They are not encyclopedia content" is simply false: encyclopedias including Wikipedia and books of every kind regularly format their ISBNs, as you can verify by looking pretty much anywhere at anything that is printed. The off-topic, ad-hominem and irrelevant remarks about "You are not one to complain..." are abhorrent and of course forbidden throughout Wikipedia. As for using the display-authors parameter, your allegation is simply mistaken: the parameter does not "throw away" anything, as anyone (and indeed any robot machine-reading the page source text) is free to consult the long lists of authors, since all the author information remains in the citations. Use of adjectives like "user-hateful" does not contribute constructively to any sort of discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeating youself stridently isn't a "refutation". There is nothing whatsoever new about normalizing ISBNs to a cleaner and much more functional for readers format. There is nothing remotely "forbidden" about pointing out that you are doing harm to the citations' utility. Look, I really do appreciate the amount of practical work you are putting into the content of this page, but you do not WP:OWN it, and your reasoning with regard to various aspects of citation formatting is badly faulty. Being increasingly angry and huffy-puffy about it is not making your argument the faintest bit more cogent. And since you clearly just don't understand the harm you're doing to citations by suppressing authors, I'll lay it out for you in great detail. The author information you are suppressing does NOT remain in the citations, except at the code level, which virtually no reader is ever going to be able to figure out, or would even have any reason to guess is the case. You are removing it from the article for all intents and purposes. I'll prove it to you: here is a copy-paste, directly out of the rendered article, of one of the citations in which you are pointlessly hiding half the authors: Perrier, Xavier; Bakry, Frédéric; Carreel, Françoise; et al. (2009). "Combining Biological Approaches to Shed Light on the Evolution of Edible Bananas". Ethnobotany Research & Applications. 7: 199–216. doi:10.17348/era.7.0.199-216. hdl:10125/12515. Archived from the original on November 16, 2019. Retrieved October 27, 2019. Note the "et al." there. Note that it does not read "Jenny, Christophe; Horry, Jean-Pierre; Lebot, Vincent; Hippolyte, Isabelle" in place of that "et al." Note that the "et al." cannot be clicked on or hovered over to get the information that you are hiding for no defensible reason (please, go into the article and check for yourself). Even experienced editors who understand our citation system very, very well have no reason to suspect that the other authors elided with "et al." are actually in the code, because the exact same output can be produced with |last1=Perrier |first1=Xavier |last2=Bakry |first2=Frédéric |last3=Carreel |first3=Françoise |display-authors=et al., and this is what most editors would expect to be present, because going to all the trouble to input all the authors after no. 3 and then supressessing them makes no sense at all, and is not something anyone would normally do. We might do this in a case of a paper with 37 authors or something excessive like that, but not when there are 7. It's just weird and pointedly, pointlessly unhelpful to readers, on purpose, for no gain of any kind to anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct in one thing, that I much prefer to do something useful to article texts, images, diagrams, tables, and citations instead of spending time on talk pages. I'm afraid I don't agree with any part of your argumentation, nor your use of adjectives, so I think we had better leave the discussion for other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"any tool [can] discard hyphens" - That sounds nice in theory, but it does not align with actual reality in practice, as I've already proven to you with the world's most-used search engine, as just one example. '"They are not encyclopedia content" is simply false'. Nope. WP explicitly defines our citations as not part of the encyclopedic content; see MOS:LAYOUT; it's considered appendix information, below the content. Whether ISBNs are frequently formatted by various publishers (and some of our own editors) with hyphens in them (inconsistently as to place and number, I'll remind you) has nothing to do with whether they are part of WP's encyclopedic content rather than categorically separate end-matter. And citations are not subject to all (just most) of the content and style guidelines (as just one example, it's permissible to use Vancouver-style citations [as long as there's a consensus for it at an article and it's done consistently], with names in the form "Smith JA", which would otherwise be against MOS:INITIALS.) If they were part of the encyclopedic content, that would not be possible. Adjectives? To quote you back to yourself: "sharply", "invariably", "off-topic", "ad-hominem", "irrelevant", "abhorrent", "forbidden", etc. Just from one post; lots more in the previous editions. But, yes, this is apt to simply turn circular and is better left to later input by other parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is also the {{Format ISBN|9781234567890}} tool. My last word on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Which has no consensus to be forced on anyone. The idea that some external organization like Intl. ISBN Agency having a preference necessarily results in a requirement that Wikipedia comply with their idea, when the real world has clearly not adopted it as a standard, is patently false. I'm going to just RfC this at WP:VPPOL because we need to settle this in a site-wide manner, one way or the other, not have sporadic editwarring about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And no reason not to, either. But you're right about one thing, it's far better to get on with something useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Effects on society section

The effects of domestication on society section reads a bit weird and propagandistic to me? I also was under the impression that Guns Germs and Steel was not a good source for sociological information at large. The article on the book includes sources specifically criticizing the section of his book we are citing here.

the next section on diversity was also weird, not really talking about domestication specifically very much at all, though I think I've added some useful info & removed much of the most bad parts of the text. Perhaps One Editor (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; the diversity subsection still reads like student assignment accretion, and is way too long for this context, so I'll cut it down a bit. A section which factually describes multiple opposing viewpoints doesn't fit easily into any known definition of propaganda. Diamond is a reliably published source, but given that later editions indeed retract the claims (and domestication certainly doesn't equate to agriculture), we can lose his bit now, and lead in to say these are diverse views. I'll tweak the section heading, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)